384rwhp running a 10.90 second 1/4 mile?
03-11-2014, 06:31 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: california
Posts: 37
384rwhp running a 10.90 second 1/4 mile?
Possible? I'm on another mustang forum and one of the users states he has a 69 mustang, unsure of the motor but has 384rwhp with a 200 shot of nitrous, does a "10.90 second 1/4 mile without spraying," and weighs roughly 3,300lbs. Any feedback? I know 1/4 mile calculators aren't 100% accurate but are usually somewhere in the ballpark and they say at 3,300lbs you'd need about 525 flywheel hp to be able to get in the 10 second range. That and the z06 corvette doesn't even do in the 10's with approximately the same body weight and what 550hp? The same goes for the 13 Shelby GT500 at what 3,800lbs and 662hp? I know that his car is probably in no way set up like these two newer cars but it doesn't seem possible to me. Anyway, I'm just curious... thanks!
Last edited by 65fastbackman; 03-11-2014 at 06:35 PM.
03-11-2014, 06:53 PM
#2
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Elk Grove, CA
Posts: 5,896
I call BS. I have a Mopar friend who runs a full-race '68 Dart with a monster naturally-aspirated 512ci (440 stroker) motor, and he only recently dipped it under 10s (9.98), and that was after swapping to a 4-link rear suspension. Before that, it was in 10.2-10.3 territory. The previous 500ci motor put it down the track in ~10.5s. I'm betting the stripped-out Dart weighs less than the Mustang (even with the big block), and has almost twice as much power.
No way is the Mustang with 384hp running 10.9 without nitrous, a lot of weight reduction, and some significant suspension/traction aids.
No way is the Mustang with 384hp running 10.9 without nitrous, a lot of weight reduction, and some significant suspension/traction aids.
03-11-2014, 10:28 PM
#4
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California
Posts: 10,468
10.90 in the 1/8th with his ****ty driving missing shifts and scraping the barrier on the way down? That might be what he meant.
He's full of **** if he thinks a 3,300lb car will go 10's with under 400 at the wheels. I could see it on the engine if it had massive weight reduction and massive suspension.....like, perfectly tuned suspension with some crazy *** 60' times and it weighed 2,000lbs.
Some people are bad liars (they don't even tell believable lies) and some people are just plain stupid. I used to work with a girl who owned one of the new Chally SRT8's....she was absolutely convinced the car ran mid 11's off the showroom floor.
He's full of **** if he thinks a 3,300lb car will go 10's with under 400 at the wheels. I could see it on the engine if it had massive weight reduction and massive suspension.....like, perfectly tuned suspension with some crazy *** 60' times and it weighed 2,000lbs.
Some people are bad liars (they don't even tell believable lies) and some people are just plain stupid. I used to work with a girl who owned one of the new Chally SRT8's....she was absolutely convinced the car ran mid 11's off the showroom floor.
03-11-2014, 10:36 PM
#5
Must be one violent superb launch...however if the calculator claims 525 would be required at the crank for that weight to hit tens, then the 384 at the wheels isn't too out of the question if its an automatic car. That just seems like a great weather/DA day time though at best. Video?
03-12-2014, 12:04 PM
#7
10.90 in the 1/8th with his ****ty driving missing shifts and scraping the barrier on the way down? That might be what he meant.
He's full of **** if he thinks a 3,300lb car will go 10's with under 400 at the wheels. I could see it on the engine if it had massive weight reduction and massive suspension.....like, perfectly tuned suspension with some crazy *** 60' times and it weighed 2,000lbs.
Some people are bad liars (they don't even tell believable lies) and some people are just plain stupid. I used to work with a girl who owned one of the new Chally SRT8's....she was absolutely convinced the car ran mid 11's off the showroom floor.
He's full of **** if he thinks a 3,300lb car will go 10's with under 400 at the wheels. I could see it on the engine if it had massive weight reduction and massive suspension.....like, perfectly tuned suspension with some crazy *** 60' times and it weighed 2,000lbs.
Some people are bad liars (they don't even tell believable lies) and some people are just plain stupid. I used to work with a girl who owned one of the new Chally SRT8's....she was absolutely convinced the car ran mid 11's off the showroom floor.
If the car in question is a 1969 Mach 1, then yes he is trolling you hard. He does run in the 10s with no NOS, but his HP is way higher than what he told you. haha
03-12-2014, 08:57 PM
#8
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Insanity
Posts: 2,176
Well....I have 400 RWHP (396 to be exact when it was dynoed 4-5 yrs ago after which I have done nothing...haven't even changed the plugs) in my 65....has run a best of 11.2 at 121 (just a couple months ago in fact)...not launched, in street trim (front 1 1/8 sway bar still bolted together), 235 40 17 tires on the front and 275 40 17 drag radials on the back. I'm convinced it would run a 10.9x if I was a better driver.
